Understanding President Carter's Human Rights
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
California Polytechnic State University President Jimmy Carter as an Activist?: Understanding President Carter’s Human Rights Policy in El Salvador during 1980 through a Social Justice Lens A Senior Project Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Liberal Arts in Candidacy for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts Department of History by Vanaaisha Das Pamnani San Luis Obispo, CA June 2018 Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to thank my senior project advisor, Dr. Gregory F. Domber, for supporting me throughout this whole process. He encouraged me to pursue a topic that I was interested in, yet unfamiliar with and provided me the guidance and push I needed to challenge my research and writing skills. I would also like to thank my family and friends for their endless support and encouragement. Thank you for pushing me to work hard and pursue my aspirations. 2 Introduction During 1980, Salvadoran citizens endured increased violence, torture, and overall suppression of their basic human rights. Many prominent figures were assassinated by either right-wing death squads or leftist insurgents. Then on December 2, 1980 came the murder of four American churchwomen from the Maryknoll Order. Their purpose was to aid the poor within Latin America; El Salvador gave them the opportunity to help the Salvadoran poor in the midst of this violence. However, they were met with suspicion by security forces and, as a result were raped and killed on a dirt road. Within a week, President Jimmy Carter cut economic and military aid as well as launched an investigation in El Salvador to find and hold the perpetrators accountable for the four murders and further, investigate the Salvadoran government’s involvement in the ongoing murders of 1980. In Washington, D.C., these December events served as a tipping point for Carter and provide a window into understanding how Carter balanced his desire to support human rights against more traditional American Cold War fears about national security and the expansion of Communist power in Latin America. While many previous scholars analyze the success of Carter’s foreign policy through a political and economic lens, with the intention of seeing U.S. national interest as the key to a successful presidency1, many neglect to see President Carter through a lens that accentuates who he was: an activist.2 While many saw his reaction to the murder of the churchwomen as an impulsive and irrational presidential decision, his actions can 1 For examples, see Robert Osgood, “Carter Policy in Perspective,” SAIS Review 1 (1981); Coral Bell, “Virtue Unrewarded: Carter’s Foreign Policy at Mid-Term,” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 54 no. 4 (U1978); Linda B. Miller, “Morality in Foreign Policy: A Failed Consensus?” Daedalus 109 no. 3 (1980). 2 An activist is defined as a person who is fighting for social, political, or economic justice to improve current conditions within society. 3 also portray Carter as a strategic and resilient activist.3 Moreover, the divided junta in El Salvador, the buildup of internal disputes within Carter’s administration, the continuous neglect of human rights as American policy in El Salvador from January to December 1980, the overarching issue of the Cold War, and the timing of this event allowed Carter to step into the role of an activist to put emphasis on the human rights policy he had initially proposed when coming into office in 1977. To understand how Carter got to this tipping point, this article will delve into the factors mentioned above to understand, in detail, how Carter and his administration increasingly felt frustrated with balancing Carter’s human rights agenda and the importance of winning the Cold War. By simultaneously looking at different perspectives of the events that occurred that year, the view that Carter had a naive approach to U.S. Foreign Policy transitions into seeing Carter’s radical hope of changing the overall structure of U.S. Foreign Policy, which puts Carter’s human rights approach wiser beyond its years. Jimmy Carter’s victory in the presidential election of 1976 marked a significant shift in the creation and execution of U.S. foreign policy, which reflected the morals and values Carter held as President and as an individual. Carter’s religious upbringing as an evangelical Christian as well as the influence from his parents shaped his concern and care for human rights globally. As a native of Georgia, he actively participated in the Southern Baptist Convention where he learned that all people, as children of God, should be protected and cared for equally. As for his parents, his mother’s actions of crossing segregated lines to counsel African American women 3 For examples of the reactions people had of Carter’s decision after the rape and murder of the four American churchwomen see Karen DeYoung, “El Salvador: Where Reagan Draws the Line,” Washington Post, March 9, 1981, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/03/09/el-salvador-where-reagan-draws- the-line/b63052cd-91a9-42df-b924-3f87b99d5d24/?utm_term=.70132fdd8b84; Juan de Onis, “U.S. Officials Fly to El Salvador to Investigate Murders: U.S. Mission Arrives,” New York Times, December 7, 1980; William LeoGrande, Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America 1977-1992, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1998). 4 on healthcare taught him to care for people’s lives other than his own. During the 1950s, he demonstrated his resistance against social injustice and human rights violations when he was the only white male to refuse membership of the White Citizens Council, a segregationist organization. A few years later, Carter slowly became more active in local boards for public institutions such as hospitals and libraries and sat on the Sumter County Board of Education. He eventually became Governor of Georgia in 1971. While he minimized appearances toward African American communities and tried to get endorsed by well-renowned segregationists during his election campaign to gain votes, his primary agenda when elected governor was to call for an end to segregation in the South. As governor of Georgia, “he increased the number of African American staff members in Georgia’s government by 25 percent” and addressed the need for protecting the environment and providing greater funding in public education.4 Carter’s support for human rights was reflected well in the positions he held and the actions he took before his presidency. His desire for the U.S. to give equal opportunity to all citizens, regardless of race during a time of racial and political turbulence, was not only addressed, but executed by him. Furthermore, his care for the environment and the funding of civic entities aided in creating a community that was well-resourced for all U.S. citizens. When he became the 39th President of the United States, his foreign policy agenda echoed the actions and policies of his past. His human rights agenda encompassed the importance of transparency, true democracy, and world peace. After Nixon’s Watergate Scandal, the secretive foreign policy practices of the government, and the continuous human right violations in developing nations, the U.S. 4 Robert A. Strong, “Jimmy Carter: Life Before The Presidency,” University of Virginia: Miller Center, accessed May 28, 2018, https://millercenter.org/president/carter/life-before-the- presidency. 5 population wanted a president who could reintroduce the American values of justice, democracy, and liberty. In an address iterated during his presidential campaign in 1975, Carter spoke of what his human rights agenda meant for the future of America’s foreign relations. He condemned past tactics U.S. government officials used during the Cold War: the vicious cycle of installing democracy and/or suppressing communism within other developing nations, resulting in repressive methods of torture, assassinations, and disappearances of civilians by governments the U.S. had established or supported to win proxy wars around the globe. As Carter put it himself: We have learned that never again should our country become militarily involved in the internal affairs of another nation unless there is a direct and obvious threat to the security of the United States or its people. We must not use the CIA or other covert means to effect violent change in any government or government policy. Such involvements are not in the best interests of world peace, and they are almost inherently doomed to failure. When we embrace one of the contending leadership factions in a country, too often it is the power of the United States, not the support of the people, which keeps that leader in power. Our chosen leader may then resort to repressive force against his own people to keep himself in power. 5 In addition, he expressed how the U.S. used undemocratic values of incentive, coercion and repression to institute U.S. democracy in the first place, and how his human rights agenda would change that: [A] lesson to be learned is that we cannot impose democracy on another country by force. Also, we cannot buy friends; and it is obvious that other nations resent it if we try. Our interests lie in protecting our national security, in preventing war, in peacefully promoting the principles of human freedom and democracy, and in exemplifying in our foreign policy the true character and attitudes of the American people. 6 5 “Address by Jimmy Carter,” May 28, 1975, Volume I, Foundations of Foreign Policy, 1977- 1980, Carter Administration, Foreign Relations of the United States Series (Office of the Historian, Washington D.C.). 6 Ibid. 6 With this in mind, he communicated his future aspirations of changing previous objectives of U.S. foreign policy to fit his values and morals regarding human rights: [It] must be the responsibility of the President to restore the moral authority of this country in its conduct of foreign policy.